New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

SOLIMINE v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2002-016-046, Claim No. 104088


Claim alleging that inmate claimant was wrongfully denied "state-issued medical sneakers" was denied.

Case Information

Claimant short name:
Footnote (claimant name) :

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Alan C. Marin
Claimant's attorney:
Frank Solimine
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Dewey Lee, AAG
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 13, 2002
New York

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)

This is the claim of Frank Solimine, which was tried at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, where Mr. Solimine testified on his own behalf. Defendant called no witnesses. In his claim, Solimine asserts that defendant "denied [him] his state issued medical sneakers . . .High Top, size nine . . . Triple "E" . . . that he was prescribed and provided for by a podiatrist on behalf of the defendant since October 10, 1988."

Solimine testified that the sneakers were prescribed because of a fractured ankle as well as problems with two of his toe nails, which, according to claimant, were surgically removed in 1985 because the boots and shoes he had worn while incarcerated were too small. Solimine explained that the sneakers had to be specially ordered because neither the high-tops nor anything beyond an E-width were normally stocked.

Claimant asserts that he was entitled to a new pair of such sneakers every nine months, although he said there were periods when he had gone for longer than that. He recalled that he was due for a new pair in September 1999, at which time his old pair was cracked and leaking. He was told that a new pair would be ordered, but in October 1999, he was sent a memo indicating that he would need to see a physician for the sneakers to be ordered. Solimine said that he had his lawyer write to the Correctional Facility and he also filed a grievance. In December 1999, Solimine saw a facility physician who approved an order for the sneakers, but thereafter, according to Solimine, he was told that the facility did not have "medical sneakers" and he was issued low-cut sneakers in January 2000.

Solimine testified that in July 2001, he received size nine, triple-E sneakers. He contends that they were severely worn within a month because they were defective. Finally, he testified that as of the time of trial, he did not have the special-order sneakers, describing this as a continuous problem and noting that he has trouble walking without the sneakers.
* * *
As to Solimine's assertion that he is entitled to the sneakers every nine months, he has submitted the fourth page of what appears to be a seven-page directive entitled "Inmate Clothing Issue." See claimant's exhibit 1. This document is insufficient to show that any applicable rule or regulation was violated: all that can be discerned is that the "wear-time expectancy" for sneakers is nine months; Solimine did not submit the previous page which prefaced a wear-time chart.

Moreover, Solimine provided no medical testimony that the special-order sneakers were required for a medical condition or that defendant violated accepted standards of medical care. Such testimony would be required in order for him to prevail. See, e.g.,
Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516, 675 NYS2d 375 (2d Dept 1998), lv denied 92 NY2d 814, 681 NYS2d 475 (1998).
For the foregoing reasons, claim no. 104088 is dismissed.


June 13, 2002
New York, New York

Judge of the Court of Claims